My experience with L.Type

[francescogola]

Inspired by the test made by others Luminous Landscape user, I ordered some prints too.
Here my experience:

http://www.francescogola.net/review/l-type-fine-art-c-type-prints/

Best,

[elliot_n]

Thanks for the review. You are obviously impressed. It is clear that L-type have given a lot of thought to the packaging of their product. However, I will only be convinced that this really is a 'revolution in C-Type digital print' when someone does a careful side-by-side test with the established technologies (Lambda, Lightjet etc.).

[mearussi]

No matter how well it's printed it's still made on RA-4 paper with it's limited display life and gamut, and modern inkjet printers can easily make prints that are razor sharp to the naked eye.

I would have to see a direct comparison between L.Type and the best inkjet print to be convinced that's it's somehow visually superior.

[Kevin Raber]

I am a believer in L.Type as I said in my video and article.  I have images made by L'Type as well as the ones I made in my studio.  I have 4 printers 2 Canons and 2 Epson as you may have seen in our studio tour video. The L.Type prints will stand up next to the prints I made any day.  There is no way we can really show differences on the web or video.  You need to try the service out and see for yourself.  Mark Segal did an in-depth analysis of these prints also.  use the search feature to find that article.  Go ahead and order some prints and see for yourself. I wouldn't recommend this service if I didn't think it was a good product.  I have a lot of material I am getting ready to send to them for portfolio boxes which quite frankly I can do like they do.

[digitaldog]

No matter how well it's printed it's still made on RA-4 paper with it's limited display life and gamut, and modern inkjet printers can easily make prints that are razor sharp to the naked eye.
I would have to see a direct comparison between L.Type and the best inkjet print to be convinced that's it's somehow visually superior.

Add me to the list so we can at least get a visual report of the two. Other than that, no question that the color gamut, lightfastness and options for papers, and I suspect Dmax are a 'win' for ink jet.

[Garnick]

Add me to the list so we can at least get a visual report of the two. Other than that, no question that the color gamut, lightfastness and options for papers, and I suspect Dmax are a 'win' for ink jet.

+ 1 to Andrew and Mearussi.  From 1967 to '72 I worked in a custom colour lab in Toronto.  In '72 I set up and operated a lab owned by a studio I had worked for in the mid sixties.  In 1981 I took possession of the lab and operated it until Feb. 2017, including two location moves.  I still own the business but I have moved it to my home.  Just a bit of background to say that from 1967 to 2004 my work and my business was built around the production of Type "C" prints and other custom lab work as well.  I too have checked the link above and what I have seen and read is somewhat enticing, except for the fact that the prints are indeed produced on a colour emulsion silver halide base processed in RA-4 chemistry.  Call it L.Type or any other name, it is digital colour printing, but with the old papers and chemistry, and we all know how well those prints lasted.  The lack of paper choices etc. is also a rather negative aspect in my opinion.  The part of this that I don't understand is the fact that people who would seem to be rather knowledgeable in the art of inkjet printing and the control one has, seem to be giving way to the nostalgia aspect of this new-old method of producing colour prints.  As far as the black and white issue is concerned, no colour emulsion will last as long as a properly processed B&W emulsion.  The prints do indeed look pretty, but for how long?  Again, this is only my opinion, but an opinion built on experience.  I have absolutely no issue with those who wish to revert to the era of "C" Prints, I simply wanted to pose some relative and I believe important questions.  Oh, and by the way, a "C or L" Type print from a digital image is not a "digital" print.     

Gary

 

[rasworth]

From 2009 to 2011 I worked with a print lab in Austin, Texas, profiling their ZBE Chromira 50" laser printer.  The printer was large, but dwarfed by the continuous RA-4 continuous process system behind it.  It was easy enough to profile, once one figured out how to completely turn off color management at the printer processor, and let Photoshop do the heavy lifting in a separate pc.

As I remember it was rated at 300 dpi, did a decent job as long as calibration (complicated process involving both the printer and RA-4 process parameters) was properly performed.  Competition from large ink jet printers was not as stiff then, although the lab found that they were a whole lot less hassle.  There was a dedicated group of photographers that preferred the look, and at that time they could obtain larger prints using the Chromira.

I downloaded the L-Type profiles, compared their gamut volumes to the ones I did for the Chromira.  The L-Type ran in the 400K+ range (using ColorThink Pro), and the custom Chromira profiles were 500K+, both significantly less for comparable media as compared to today's ink jet papers.

Not trying to disparage the L-Type prints, but this thread does bring back some of the early CD vs. vinyl discussions.

Richard Southworth

[digitaldog]

I downloaded the L-Type profiles, compared their gamut volumes to the ones I did for the Chromira.  The L-Type ran in the 400K+ range (using ColorThink Pro), and the custom Chromira profiles were 500K+, both significantly less for comparable media as compared to today's ink jet papers.

Ditto. And for numbers, Gamut Volume as reported by ColorThink Pro:
Type L luster 406,299.
For Epson P800 on Epson luster: 711,186.
OUCH.

[mearussi]

Ditto. And for numbers, Gamut Volume as reported by ColorThink Pro:
Type L luster 406,299.
For Epson P800 on Epson luster: 711,186.
OUCH.

Exactly. People can brag to me about how well built their buggy whips are manufactured, but I don't drive a buggy so I don't care. Why spend so much money perfecting obsolete technology?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Exactly. People can brag to me about how well built their buggy whips are manufactured, but I don't drive a buggy so I don't care...

If I drive a car on the road where the speed limit is 75 mph, and the common sense tells me that anything above 90-100 mph is seriously asking for trouble, do I really care that there are cars that can do 200-300 mph?

In other words, how many real-life pictures fall outside of the narrower range of the L-Type prints? And if they do fall outside (and I have no doubt that Andrew is going to come up with some examples), how much the end result would be unacceptable? I have printed images that fall completely outside the gamut, yet the end result still looks very nice.

[digitaldog]

In other words, how many real-life pictures fall outside of the narrower range of the L-Type prints? And if they do fall outside (and I have no doubt that Andrew is going to come up with some examples), how much the end result would be unacceptable? I have printed images that fall completely outside the gamut, yet the end result still looks very nice.

Unless you've experienced it, you're only imagining it.
Yes I have examples, want to seem them or imagine them?
IF you're printing B&W work, if your work is low gamut and fits in a small color space, you'll see no difference. If you work with very saturated imagery you very well may. If you want more options for paper surfaces, you're SOL with Type L. If you expect your prints to be as lightfast (as archival as the current technology provides), you're SOL with Type L.
Why don't YOU find one of your images that you feel is very saturated in color, if you have any, send a small low rez file (800x800 pixels is fine), I do have the tools to show YOU what would or would not potentially be printable with the Type L profile and the Epson profile I have. Then you don't have to imagine any longer.

I have printed images that fall completely outside the gamut, yet the end result still looks very nice.

Compared to what else that didn't? Sounds like one hand clapping unless you've compared it to something else. And how did you know what images fell outside of color gamut? You, like I may have the tools to do so and if so, please provide the gamut plots. 

[elliot_n]

You guys with your measuring sticks are entirely missing the point. Yes, you have more paper options with an inkjet printer, but one option you don't have is the c-type print. C-types have a special look, and some photographers prefer that look any inkjet print.

In general I prefer to ride my bicycle, rather than drive my car.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... please provide the gamut plots. 

We had this discussion a few years back:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97993.msg808945#msg808945

Plots, and the image, are there.

[digitaldog]

We had this discussion a few years back:

We did? I think not. I'm not involved whatsoever in that series of posts or I'd ask then what I'm asking how: What are you trying to show there?
I see something blue. I see it is in sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) and I see blues falling outside the gamut of what? I do not see a rendering in ProPhoto RGB. I don't know what printer you're plotting.
Why not simply send a small low rez file as requested, ideally rendered from raw, into ProPhoto RGB, tell me what printer you want to compare it to (Type L, got one).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

We did?...

"We" as a collective term for LuLa members who participated in that thread, not "we" as "you and me."

File attached. The second one is in sRGB, as how it should look like when printed (more or less).

[digitaldog]

"We" as a collective term for LuLa members who participated in that thread, not "we" as "you and me."

I'll examine the two files and get back to you soon

[digitaldog]

Image in ProPhoto supplied vs. Type L and Epson P800.
You want to reproduce all these colors, the wider gamut printer, the better!

[digitaldog]

Another way to view the sRGB vs. ProPhoto RGB rendering is the difference (deltaE) of the two:
This isn't about the output device of course, it's about picking a working space for such an image. Then converting to some output color space. You can't convert what you don't have in the first place!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks for the comparison.

My take on this (and not meant in an argumentative way) is that in both cases the image colors fall way out of gamut for both printers, slightly less so for the inkjet.

The question then becomes, as the member "bill t" formulated it back in 2015 (bold mine):

not which media is least out of gamut in the blues, but rather which one has the most attractive palette of Gamut-Failure-Blues.

As I said, I had it printed on brushed aluminum, which I assume has a rather limited gamut itself, and the result is quite nice, i.e., offering "the most attractive Gamut-Failure-Blues."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another way to view the sRGB vs. ProPhoto RGB rendering is the difference (deltaE) of the two:
This isn't about the output device of course, it's about picking a working space for such an image. Then converting to some output color space. You can't convert what you don't have in the first place!

That is an interesting comparison, thank you.